JennyK
Gelding
T
Tufnel
re form, most will have an idea of whether on recent runs a horse looks likely to be in form for a race coming up, and who is to say one view is better than another? There is only one reason, and that not an over-poweringly strong one, for putting in the undoubted time and effort to try to work out VDW's. We know he was a fantasist and liar, which does the potential validity of his selections - all given after the races concerned and none as far as we know proofed to anyone - no good at all. BUT, if one leaves that to one side for a while and looks in depth at his selections, a coherent approach emerges, as least in the opinion of successful VDWers such as Gummy posters Guest and Lee. The only reason why anyone should bother trying to work out VDW's method of rating form status is if, having left to one side the obvious question marks about his bona fides, one thinks it is possible that his claimed strike rate was real and is realistic today if one works as he did. VDW made what seems an extremely high strike rate claim, but the only way to test whether it is realistic is to use his approach his way.
Guest made a number of pre-race selections on the Gummy forum and elsewhere; some were successful, some not and his known strike rate did not approach the VDW claimed level in the ones he posted pre race. And I read somewhere that post Gummy he was making more money by analysing races in the way he believed VDW did and laying poor favourites than by his winning selections.
Lee did achieve the level of success VDW claimed in short bursts of pre race selections on the Gummy thread and I think one elsewhere. Whether they were purple patches or reflected his normal success rate only he knows for certain. I have been told he and his wife own a significant and reasonably well-known company and now live in one of the more peaceful and prosperous parts of the Middle East. Whether betting wins played any part in how he did so well, I've no idea.
Apart from a few pre race posts by me on this forum, that is about the sum total of what has been shown pre race re success by, I would say, people with convincing interpretations of VDW's approach. If you or anyone else commented that that doesn't add up to much, I'd agree. But that, and of course what one gets from reading VDW's letters and articles and examining his examples, is really all of which I am aware. My advice to you, or indeed anyone, is either make the effort to work out VDW's idiosyncractic way of assessing form status (and the only means is that I set out in detail a week or two back on this thread) or be happy with your own approach, which may well be as logical and effective, perhaps even more so. And if you don't get a high strike rate using your method, that doesn't mean you've failed; it, the simple fact is no one knows for certain what VDW's long term success rate was. So there is no objectively proved standard against which yours, mine or anyone else's can be said to fall short.
It is also worth reflecting that although VDW's method of rating form status was one of the two main pillars of his approach, being a VDW "form" horse does not guarantee that such a horse will run to form in its next race, and nor does anyone else's. Any means of assessing form status is historical and tells us that a given horse has been in form, on whatever definition we use. But no method gves a guarantee that in this race, about to be run, a specific form horse, on VDW's method or any other, will run to that form (or, conversly, that a horse which appears to be out of form will not return to form in the race).
re form, most will have an idea of whether on recent runs a horse looks likely to be in form for a race coming up, and who is to say one view is better than another? There is only one reason, and that not an over-poweringly strong one, for putting in the undoubted time and effort to try to work out VDW's. We know he was a fantasist and liar, which does the potential validity of his selections - all given after the races concerned and none as far as we know proofed to anyone - no good at all. BUT, if one leaves that to one side for a while and looks in depth at his selections, a coherent approach emerges, as least in the opinion of successful VDWers such as Gummy posters Guest and Lee. The only reason why anyone should bother trying to work out VDW's method of rating form status is if, having left to one side the obvious question marks about his bona fides, one thinks it is possible that his claimed strike rate was real and is realistic today if one works as he did. VDW made what seems an extremely high strike rate claim, but the only way to test whether it is realistic is to use his approach his way.
Guest made a number of pre-race selections on the Gummy forum and elsewhere; some were successful, some not and his known strike rate did not approach the VDW claimed level in the ones he posted pre race. And I read somewhere that post Gummy he was making more money by analysing races in the way he believed VDW did and laying poor favourites than by his winning selections.
Lee did achieve the level of success VDW claimed in short bursts of pre race selections on the Gummy thread and I think one elsewhere. Whether they were purple patches or reflected his normal success rate only he knows for certain. I have been told he and his wife own a significant and reasonably well-known company and now live in one of the more peaceful and prosperous parts of the Middle East. Whether betting wins played any part in how he did so well, I've no idea.
Apart from a few pre race posts by me on this forum, that is about the sum total of what has been shown pre race re success by, I would say, people with convincing interpretations of VDW's approach. If you or anyone else commented that that doesn't add up to much, I'd agree. But that, and of course what one gets from reading VDW's letters and articles and examining his examples, is really all of which I am aware. My advice to you, or indeed anyone, is either make the effort to work out VDW's idiosyncractic way of assessing form status (and the only means is that I set out in detail a week or two back on this thread) or be happy with your own approach, which may well be as logical and effective, perhaps even more so. And if you don't get a high strike rate using your method, that doesn't mean you've failed; it, the simple fact is no one knows for certain what VDW's long term success rate was. So there is no objectively proved standard against which yours, mine or anyone else's can be said to fall short.
It is also worth reflecting that although VDW's method of rating form status was one of the two main pillars of his approach, being a VDW "form" horse does not guarantee that such a horse will run to form in its next race, and nor does anyone else's. Any means of assessing form status is historical and tells us that a given horse has been in form, on whatever definition we use. But no method gves a guarantee that in this race, about to be run, a specific form horse, on VDW's method or any other, will run to that form (or, conversly, that a horse which appears to be out of form will not return to form in the race).
